Pages

Friday, July 28, 2017

On “The Great Decoupling” of Consciousness from Intelligence

-In his chapter on “The Great Decoupling” of consciousness from
intelligence, Harari posits that with the rise of unprecedentedly
intelligent algorithms, 'intelligence' as a faculty is no longer
intrinsically tied to consciousness or subjective experience. As
computers, these algorithms are not at all conscious or experiencing
subjectively; they are 'mindless,' and thus require a new and novel
description: “mindless intelligence.”

-As a result of the rise of mindless intelligence, the competition
between humans and machines comes to regard not only physical
abilities and capacities, but psychological abilities and capacities
as well. This means that the paradigm of mass automation taking human
jobs has, perhaps, reached a point where machines will not be
employed simply for the automation of physical work, but also for
jobs which until recently would have required a certain cognitive
acuity and depth possessed only by humans. As such, Harari asks: “As
long as machines competed with us merely in physical abilities, you
could always find cognitive tasks that humans do better. So machines
took over purely manual jobs, while humans focused on jobs requiring
at least some cognitive skills. Yet what will happen once algorithms
outperform us in remembering, analysing and recognising patterns?”

-Earlier in “Homo Deus,” Harari points out that science typically
understands consciousness (insofar as it does understand it)
as akin to a complex set of algorithms as our artificial intelligence
is. Winding the clock back to the 19th century Industrial
Revolution, he points out how the general scientific / academic
consensus of that time understood consciousness through the
comparable analogy of the steam engine. Sigmund Freud's work is a
good example of this insofar as he writes of such tactics as a
military trying to curb and exploit the 'sexual drives' of individual
soldiers by sexually frustrating them, thus building a pressure that
is strategically released and utilized for combat. In other words,
like a steam engine, pressure is strategically and mechanistically
applied and released to propel the engine forward, hence the saying
that one needs to “let off some steam.”

-Why were steam engines the analogical focus of the time? Harari
says, “[b]ecause that was the leading technology of the day, which
powered trains, ships and factories, so when humans tried to explain
life, they assumed it must work according to analogous principles.
Mind and body are made of pipes, cylinders, valves and pistons that
build and release pressure, thereby producing movements and actions.”
The same applies to our use of algorithms as the dominant analogical
device for consciousness; because algorithms are “the leading
technology of the day,” we work our studies of brain, mind, and
body quite strictly from said analogy.

-It is my assertion that, though the analogy is very valuable, it
should be recognized for what it is: an invented analogical framework
with limits intrinsic to how strictly we apply it as a comparative
rule of thumb. This seems to get lost on Harari as he delves further
into his writing and applies the analogy within strict parameters as
if it is now the only analogy possibly relevant to
understanding consciousness. Though consciousness does undoubtedly
have manifestly algorithmic qualities, to take our theoretical
understanding of intelligent algorithms as we have invented and
discovered them and then turn to strictly1
apply it to our studies of the human mind would ultimately be a case
of making the tail wag the dog. Though Harari does undermine the
strictness of the analogy as applied by himself and others by
presenting the parallel between the 19th century steam
engine analogy and our present-day analogy of algorithms, it seems he
still holds on to the latter too tightly himself, thus perhaps
obfuscating certain insights (and endorsing such obfuscation as a
rule) with an implicit doctrinalism.

-Further into “The Great Decoupling,” Harari says there may come
a day when algorithms are essentially able to do everything we
currently do, but much better. As a result of such an evolution,
people will no longer be economically relevant, leading many to say
this could be an opportunity for all those who have become
productively disenfranchised to focus on creating art. However,
employing his rather reductive tone, Harari then goes on to give
examples of how algorithmic intelligence is able to compose
incredible classical piano, orchestral, and symphonic pieces
alongside haiku and other such poetry as well as or even better
than average humans can. Thus, he asserts, humans will also
become artistically irrelevant. The automation of classical
composition, for example, has led to much disgust and fear on the
part of traditional classical musical buffs who a) do not think a
computer is capable of meaningful artistic composition because humans
have a certain 'touch' that cannot be replicated, and b) likely feel
threatened at the idea of being relegated to said artistic
irrelevance.

-However, just because algorithms are capable of creating beautiful
artistic works, so are humans. It seems impossible to me that humans
will somehow thus be rendered valueless in their artistic endeavours
as a result of artificial intelligence. Likewise, the idea that a
computer can create art should not degrade its value to anyone for
two interlinking reasons:

just as the name of the chapter implies, this 'Great Decoupling”
of intelligence from consciousness means that, though the algorithms
are irrefutably intelligent, they are not conscious and do not draw
their artistic insights and abilities from experience as humans do,
but instead from aggregated and processed data; though people may
not be able to tell the difference unless explicitly stated, when
aware of whether a computer or a human composed a piece, humans will
understand and appreciate more highly the piece that is known to be
the product of a combination of human intelligence and
consciousness, as it roots from the expression of a subjectivity we
can and must relate to as said subjective relatability is one of the
prime reasons for the existence of art. Art as human self-expression
for other humans will not disappear simply because algorithms are
now capable of effective creativity. This is the reason people
became offended when they discovered a beautiful piano piece that
had truly moved them was actually composed by a computer: because
now the rug of self-expressive relatability had been pulled out from
under them whereas they were under the illusory understanding they
were relating to something emanating from a like subjectivity at
least as complex as their own, with similar life trials,
tribulations, ecstasies, boredom's, and joys. When it was revealed to
be the creation of an algorithm, the audience understood this for
what it is: the result of the aggregate data-processing and
self-learning of a mindless computer—of mindless, as opposed to a
relatable mindful, intelligence.

And, in the algorithms defense as well as to contextualize, the
compositions created by said algorithms are the result of
aggregating, processing, and learning the techniques of innumerable
human composers from throughout history. As such, it is still from
the perch of unconscious intelligence, but as the old medieval
saying goes, it is “standing [or, perching] on the shoulders of
giants.” Human composers do this as well, but from a necessarily
more partial position as regards the limited capacities of an
individual human brain. Thus, human compositions will remain
valuable even if algorithms are capable of much more technically
impressive heights regardless of personal technical ability and
prowess as subjective relatability is and will remain a central
tenet of artistic expression and reception. However, the algorithm's
music can also still be appreciated for what it is, as it obviously
would retain a human beauty and relatability as a result of it
ultimately being the product of nothing but. In other words, human
creativity will be joined by human-generated algorithmic creativity
and perhaps even fused with it in novel ways, but it will not be
steamrolled out of existence.

1:
In some ways, 'literally' apply in a format similar to tired
monotheist dogmas, as in the singular 'mono' implying 'this and only
this' analogy as it once implied 'this and only this' God or
doctrine.

1 comment:

On This Day in History:

Our World Is Ours to Keep.

Copyright

The world is meaningless,

there is no God or gods, there are no morals, the universe is not moving inexorably towards any higher purpose.All meaning is man-made, so make your own, and make it well.Do not treat life as a way to pass the time until you die.Do not try to "find yourself", you must make yourself.Choose what you want to find meaningful and live, create, love, hate, cry, destroy, fight and die for it.Do not let your life and your values and your actions slip easily into any mold, other that that which you create for yourself, and say with conviction, "This is who I make myself".Do not give in to hope.Remember that nothing you do has any significance beyond that with which you imbue it.Whatever you do, do it for its own sake.When the universe looks on with indifference, laugh, and shout back, "Fuck You!".Rembember that to fight meaninglessness is futile, but fight anyway, in spite of and because of its futility.The world may be empty of meaning, but it is a blank canvas on which to paint meanings of your own.Live deliberately. You are free.

Looking for something in particular?

MY CURRENT LOCATION:

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Please Note: The location is roughly accurate. It will be updated every time I log on and happen to be in a significantly different location.

CHECK THESE OUT:

About Me

I am a twenty-four year old male living in the western Canadian city of Victoria, British Columbia. I politically self-identify as a libertarian socialist, and religiously seem to embody philosophical Taoism in terms of my spiritual worldview.